What these researchers fail to mention is that the Schiffman (1987)
research is useless because of major design flaws. It is also particularly
troubling that none of the above-mentioned authors cited the Koehler
(1988) double-blind study!

Before we discuss the major flaws of the Schiffman study, I will present
some background information. The study was partially funded by
Monsanto/NutraSweet and conducted at the Searle Center at Duke University.
(G.D. Searle is owned by Monsanto.) Susan Schiffman performed her research
at the "Searle Center" at Duke University. The Searle Center is under the
guidance of William Anlyan, a former G.D. Searle director. Schiffman is a
former General Foods and G.D. Searle consultant. The FDA helped design the
study protocol. [Gordon 1987, page 500 of US Senate 1987; Shapiro 1987,
page 403 of US Senate 1987].)

Schiffman (1987) major flaws:

The aspartame was given for only one day.

The aspartame was given in encapsulated form which would lower
the toxicity by eliminating the sudden absorption of the excitotoxic
amino acid and methanol (Stegink 1987). The absorption of the
excitotoxin is gradual, somewhat closer to what happens when
ingesting food. The methanol is absorbed more slowly and that may
significantly reduce toxicity as happens when food in the stomach
slows methanol absorption (Posner 1975).

There was no baseline frequency of headaches determined before
administering aspartame or placebo.
It is very important to note the main distinction between the Koehler
(1988) study and the Schiffman (1987) study. While both studies used
capsules which would be expected to significantly reduce aspartame
toxicity and both studies used subjects who claimed to have headaches from
aspartame, the Koehler (1988) study administered aspartame for
four weeks while the Schiffman (1987) study administered
the aspartame for only one day!

When one examines the double-blind studies funded by the aspartame
industry, a pattern develops. Industry-supported research on subjects who
have reported serious reactions to aspartame is almost always one day long
and the aspartame is administered in capsules (e.g., Hertelendy 1993,
Rowen 1995, Schiffman 1987). Industry-supported research that lasts
several weeks is usually performed on individuals that might be expected
to experience adverse reactions after at least several months of aspartame
use (e.g., Shaywitz 1994) or on individuals even less susceptible to
short-term aspartame toxicity, but where more sensitive neurological tests
were conducted (e.g., Spiers 1998). The longer (but still relatively
short) industry-supported research (3-6 months) usually uses healthy
subjects who would likely only experience serious adverse reactions after
many months or several years of aspartame use (e.g., Leon 1989, Trefz
1994). While the length of the study is not the only flaw in these
industry-sponsored studies, there appears to be an obvious pattern of
exceptionally short studies used on more susceptible subjects. It would
appear that the manufacturer funds research with protocol designs
virtually guaranteed to find no adverse reactions!